Right... :) I certainly don't see a solution to this other than to assume all devices do the wrong thing. I'm just not willing to quirk-list half of all devices out there.
If someone has a good solution, I'd love to hear it... but, realistically, I don't know that one exists. Matt On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:31:58AM +1000, Brad Hards wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:03, Matthew Dharm wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 08:52:16AM +1000, Brad Hards wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:35, Matthew Dharm wrote: > > > > Really, the only safe thing to do is assume media-change on > > > > removal/insertion, given that devices (as a generalized term) are > > > > inconsistant in their ability/willingness to indicate media change. > > > > > > Could you "quirk" this, so that the normal assumption is that unannounced > > > media change did occur, and then make happier assumptions for known > > > good devices? > > > > We could 'quirk' it, but it would quirk the other way -- most devices > > properly report media change. Otherwise we'd be listing almost all devices > > in the quirk table. > Maybe linear search isn't the best option for unusual devices :) > > > The problem is that this is a pretty serious problem.... if it doesn't > > work, all sorts of things fail. We kinda have to assume the worst, given > > the distribution of devices in existance. > This was why I went with the "assume that the device does mad/bad things" > and then "when someone claims that their device works, quirk it to good". > > Brad > > -- > http://conf.linux.org.au. 22-25Jan2003. Perth, Australia. Birds in Black. -- Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver What, are you one of those Microsoft-bashing Linux freaks? -- Customer to Greg User Friendly, 2/10/1999
msg07840/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
